> On 01/23/2013 11:40 AM, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:>> WM<mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:>>>>> On 23 Jan., 14:39, "Jesse F. Hughes"<je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:>>>>>>> If he wants to do math without the axiom of infinity, let him!>>>>>> No, I show that it is not possible to do math with that axiom in a>>> consistent way.>>>>>>> But>>>> his bloviating about inconsistency in ZF should occasionally be>>>> challenged, since it is so easy to show that he's full of bluster,>>>> jumping from topic to topic because he honestly knows that none of his>>>> arguments survive any real examination.>>>>>> Try to find the difference between the Binary Trees. That should open>>> your eyes.>>>> Why not finish our discussion of N first? Why must you change the>> subject?>>>> As an aside on debates and such, it's sometimes said that> controlling the "terms of reference" is important, as in:> "What is the issue? What is the query? What is the question> to be debated?">> This raises the question: What is relevant? (to the question of> the debate).>> Naturally, I'll grant that here, "Binary Trees" is irrelevant !> to the question of ZF consistency ...

I've seen WM flit from topic to topic before. I don't see the pointof leaving our original topic unfinished.

-- "Just be aware that anti-Cantorians are sick of being called crackpots,and the day will soon come when the crankiest Cantorians will eattheir words, and this rot will be extricated from mathematics." -- Tony Orlow, an "anti-Cantorian" ready to rumble